JAMEEL AHMED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged an order dated 24-9-2000 whereby the State Government has withdrawn its earlier letter dated 28-10-1998 wherein the State had given the benefit of parole. Open Camp Jail and Remission to the prisoners convicted under NDPS Act and TADA Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that vide judgment dated 30-11-2002, the Judge, Designated Court, TADA, Ajmer had convicted the appellant under Section 6(1) of TADA under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Section 9-B( 1) B and (vii) and under Section 9-C of the Explosive Act and had sentenced him for different terms of imprisonment, the maximum being 5 years of R.I. Till 16-7-2006, the petitioner has undergone an incarceration of 4 years and 23 days. According to the petitioner vide letter dated 28-10-1998, the benefit of remission, parole & Open Camp Jail was extended to prisoners convicted under NDPS Act and TADA Act. However, vide order dated 29-4-2000, the said letter was revoked. Hence the benefit of parole, Open Camp Jail & Remission was denied to prisoners convicted under the aforementioned Acts. According to the petitioner such a denial is arbitrary and unreasonable as no reasons have been stated by the State for denying the said benefits.

(3.) Mr. Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, with all the vehemence at his command, and has contended that personal liberty can be deprived only by a procedure established by law. According to him the Rajasthan Prisoners Rules 1951 provide for grant of remission to the prisoner. Initially, vide letter dated 28-10-1998, the Government had granted the grant of remission, parole, Open Camp Jail to the convicted of TADA and NDPS Act. However, vide circular dated 29-4-2000 the said privileges have been denied. According to the learned counsel Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 prescribes ineligibility of the prisoners. Under the rules, prisoners convicted under NDPS and TADA have not been declared ineligible for the benefit of parole. Therefore, there is no express bar that the prisoners are not entitled to be released on parole, (though they have completed one fourth of their sentence). They are entitled to be released on parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. According to the learned counsel since Rules of 1958 themselves do not make a prisoner convicted of TADA ineligible of remission or parole, the State cannot deny the benefit of remission or of parole by withdrawing a privilege given to them earlier. Lastly, according to the learned counsel parole and remission are the rights of the prisoners. Such a right cannot be denied without a procedure established by law. For, such a denial would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.